Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 111/R of 1984, decided on 6th April, 1986.
(From the judgment of the Peshawar High Court Peshawar, dated 28‑1‑1984 in Civil Revision No. 312 of 1979).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Appeal (civil)‑‑Practice‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑ Petitioners inter alia contending that impugned judgment was based on misreading of evidence and further that while deciding issue on relief, technical objection with regard to respondents, not having been impleaded
in an earlier suit, could have been overcome‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine questions.
Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 6th April, 1986.
Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 28‑1‑1984 of the Peshawar High Court, whereby petitioners' civil revision petition arising out of a land suit, was dismissed.
According to the petitioners Salim Khan the original owner of the suit land sold it to the petitioners on 21st May, 1975, through a transaction which was recorded in the Roznamcha Waqiati of the Patwari as also in Column No. 15 of Mutation No.
The first mentioned document is also signed by the vendor namely Salim Khan. The respondent side, the petitioners' case is, knowing fully well that Salim Khan had already sold the suit land to the petitioners through a power of
attorney executed in favour of Gul Shahdeen reported to the Patwari a
sale purported to have been made by Salim Khan to the respondents on 24‑5‑1975 which it is further claimed by the respondents also included the suit land. This report is the subject‑matter of Mutation No. 30. Learned counsel for the petitioners has explained that it was through fraudulent means that although the petitioners' sale was earlier, the mutation in that connection was given No. 35 while the sale in favour of the respondents was later, the mutation there for was given No.30 On face the fraudulent act was purported to have been covered by the fact that both the mutations were sanctioned on the same day. The petitioners in order to get their title cleared filed a civil suit against Salim Khan which was decreed in their favour or, 8‑2‑1977. The respondents thereafter filed another suit on 26‑1‑1978 claiming that the decree passed against Salim Khan was not binding on them as they were not impleaded in that suit as party. It may be mentioned here that within the respondents' inter se there has been subsequent sale, but it is not essential to give its detail at this stage. The fact remains that their suit was decreed, the petitioners' appeal failed and their revision met the same fate, therefore, they have sought leave to appeal.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has inter alia contended that the impugned judgment is based on misreading of evidence and further while deciding issue on relief the technical objection with regard to the respondents not having been impleaded in the earlier suit could have been overcome.
After hearing the learned counsel we consider it a fit case to grant of leave to appeal to examine the questions raised in the petition.
Order accordingly.
Security Rs.2,000.
M . Y . H . Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer